Here is what gets me about the last article:Society gives "benefits" to marriage because marriage gives benefits to society.

And the benefits it is talking aboutOnly the union of a man and a woman can result in the natural reproduction that is essential literally to continue the human race.

Just because a man and woman get married does not mean they are going to have babies. So isn't that a lame excuse?

Then this question came to mind. What if two males wanted to wed. Since it is against the law for same sex marriages one of them gets a sex change operation. I mean it is the person one loves and not the sex. Right? The person is the soul mate no matter if it is man woman horse chicken or elephant. So two men can't legally marry but if one get changed then it is legal even though it is the same person. And still will be no kids involved.

Oh but wait. These people in a gay marriage can adopt. Holy Moly. An orphaned child could have a home. A whole family unit.

If the "having children" is the only benefit of a married couple then perhaps people shouldn't get married unless they are going to have kids. Means a sterile person could never get married.

Logged

:rainbowflower: Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak. :rainbowflower:

I wish they'd leave the M word out of it. Marriage is a religious term applied to a set of legal agreements and rights. Call them civil unions and leave marriage to religion. That way everyone will be happy. Well, kind of :evil: :roll:

It use to be.. now it's a government term.. have to get a license.. follow the rules. My religion beliefs allow me to have a dozen wives.. but the government says I can only have one.. if I follow my beliefs and have multiple wives.. the government puts me in jail.

this has been discussed many times, and as usual, same people discuss it.

gay marriage? NO, NEVER, if god wanted it, he'd create "John" from Adams rib now wouldn't he?and like i've said it (if it's been disscused here, before) children usually grow up to be what their parents are (ackward expressions) so...a gay marriage and adoptance would be just #1 for society which is already in decline (in terms of reproducing) and as usual, it's the 1st world countries that would like to allow gays to adopt children. (in the 3rd world countryes gays are usually hanged or hide it).

Ken, that's not true! you can be married to a dozens of wives if you want to be, but it has to be done in your religios concept and there's no law forbiding having more than 1 wife in your belief with your way of marriage. officialy-in state concerns, you can only have 1

whenever you see this stuff come up, the first word that should come to mind is AGENDA.

the gay community says they are 10% of the population. more unbiased estimates are around 3%. 3% of the population engages in a kind of sex that most of us don't condone, but would say nothing about, if it were not shoved down our throat.

what is the purpose of shoving homosexuality down the throats of the straight community? why would anyone want to make public their preferences in the bedroom?

they are a part of a larger movement to change the society. in their ideal society there would be no religion. there would be no marriage. no restrictions on abortion and oddly....no death penalty. no restrictions on drug use, open borders, international law would rule. no military, or a much reduced military subject to international law and commanded by the un......these are truly the one world, internationalists. in order to achieve their goal, the social structure of the us must be destroyed. that means destroying institution, especially religions, as quickly as possible. why not start with marriage?

to early...i'm rambling :-)

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

There you go. Some of the first things to pop up is religion. There are many religions, which one is right? And then there are those that don't believe in a higher being. Why should they be bound by our beliefs? Just cause we say so?

a gay marriage and adoptance would be just #1 for society which is already in decline (in terms of reproducing) and as usual, it's the 1st world countries that would like to allow gays to adopt children. (in the 3rd world countryes gays are usually hanged or hide it).

You are talking about countries that are not free I guess. But you are saying it is better for a child to be warehoused away somewhere than to be adopted by a gay couple. The child would not necessarily become gay just as kids from straight families might not be straight.

whenever you see this stuff come up, the first word that should come to mind is AGENDA.

the gay community says they are 10% of the population. more unbiased estimates are around 3%. 3% of the population engages in a kind of sex that most of us don't condone, but would say nothing about, if it were not shoved down our throat.

what is the purpose of shoving homosexuality down the throats of the straight community? why would anyone want to make public their preferences in the bedroom?

I'm not just talking about what goes on in the bedroom. I am talking marriage. Two people want to get married. What is wrong with that?

they are a part of a larger movement to change the society. in their ideal society there would be no religion. there would be no marriage. no restrictions on abortion and oddly....no death penalty. no restrictions on drug use, open borders, international law would rule. no military, or a much reduced military subject to international law and commanded by the un......these are truly the one world, internationalists. in order to achieve their goal, the social structure of the us must be destroyed. that means destroying institution, especially religions, as quickly as possible. why not start with marriage?

to early...i'm rambling :-)

UMmmmm Yeah. OK. I guess........ So you want to shove your religion down my throat? I suppose you want me to buy a certain type of car that is a certain color just to please you?

No one is talking about destroying marriage. They are trying to get married. And marriage does not mean they are even going to have sex. I know because I have a cousin that can not have sex (that would be consistent with reproduction) but got married. So since normal sex was not an option for this person, what difference does it make who the other person was. (In this case it was a male/female marriage.)

Logged

:rainbowflower: Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak. :rainbowflower:

I'm not just talking about what goes on in the bedroom. I am talking marriage. Two people want to get married. What is wrong with that?

homosexual behavior is about what goes on in the bedroom. it is a choice of sexual lifestyle.

Quote

So you want to shove your religion down my throat? I suppose you want me to buy a certain type of car that is a certain color just to please you?

that doesn't even make sense. i don't care what your religion is or what you drive. your choice.

Quote

No one is talking about destroying marriage. They are trying to get married. And marriage does not mean they are even going to have sex. I know because I have a cousin that can not have sex (that would be consistent with reproduction) but got married. So since normal sex was not an option for this person, what difference does it make who the other person was. (In this case it was a male/female marriage.)

it's not about destroying marriage. it's about destroying institutions. we have many examples in history of institutions of society destroyed to change society. the communists did away with all religious practices except those token churches that were under their control. Hitler burned bibles and controlled the churches and the message. radical Islam controls religion and practices in the countries they control. in Saudi Arabia, you go to jail for possession of a bible. china and Vietnam put priests, monks, and pastors in jail.

the reason religion is attacked first, all religions, is that faith is powerful. when you have destroyed the institutions of faith, you can move on and destroy the other institutions of society. next to faith, the strongest building block in our society is the family. after that come laws and constitution. welfare tells people that the family unit is not necessary because the government will care for you, and gays say family is whatever you want it to be. the ACLU does a fine job of chipping away at laws and constitution.

it's not complex when you break it down and realize that these movements don't happen in a vacuum. they are organized and they have a purpose.

show me a country that has ditched it founding beliefs and is better off now than it was when it was founded. i can't think of one off hand......

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

We will step away from religion then since you are not trying to cram it down my throat.

You mentioned "family". What is that exactly?

Man - woman - child?Man - woman? Person - spouse?If a man and a woman make a family then why not a man and a man? Or a woman and a woman?

If it takes at least one child in there to make a family then don't let anyone marry unless they are going to have a baby. Or the homosexuals can adopt, thereby becoming a whole family unit. Who gives a rats patutie if anything goes on in the bedroom or not. (As I said. I do know people that are physically unable to have "normal" sex. No I never asked what they did in the bedroom)

Logged

:rainbowflower: Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak. :rainbowflower:

most people are apathetic. if it does not directly impact them, who cares?

one more thing to think about.

if we are going to validate deviant sexual behavior for one group, why not others? who will say that NAMBLA should not have their behavior supported? who will say that incest is wrong between consenting partners? why is one form of deviant sexual behavior ok, but another is not?

Main Entry: 2deviantFunction: noun: something that deviates from a norm; especially : a person who differs markedly (as in intelligence, social adjustment, or sexual behavior) from what is considered normal for a group

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

"a person who differs markedly (as in intelligence, social adjustment, or sexual behavior) from what is considered normal for a group"

So you have a group of Homosexuals the heterosexual that walks up would be the deviant.

"who will say that incest is wrong between consenting partners? why is one form of deviant sexual behavior ok, but another is not?"

If it is all consenting adults.... what business is it of yours or mine?

Back to marriage. Imagine a scale like the blind justice statue has. On one side is a man and a woman that get married and move into a $50,000 home. On the other side of the scale is a same sex couple that marry and move into a $50,000 home. They eat, sleep, work, do the up keep on the home, pay taxes and all the other things that a married couple does. Why would the scale tilt one way or the other? Why wouldn't it remain equal?

A married couple is just that, a married couple. Please outline the difference because I just can't see it. (Other than the ability to reproduce. Any sex other than specifically for reproducing is for self gratification and is a form of deviant sex. The only reason it isn't considered deviant is because that would upset way too many people.)

Logged

:rainbowflower: Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak. :rainbowflower:

i really didn'0t read everything, coz i don't have time, so i'll be short in just replying to jerrys replys to me.

ok...so to eliminate the religius contentif it was normal, 2 men or 2 women could reproduce, can they? (naturaly)

whoever says children do not look up to parents says it from two reasons. either he is dumb, or he just wants to discard a statement (no jerry i'm not saying your dumb, neither do i think so...)you just CAN'T say that % of gay people wouldn't go up if more children were raised by gay parents.

no i don't think it's better to "warehouse" the child it's just that...gayness should be supressed, it should be a thing of which people should be ashamed of. now...1 or 2% or all population are gay, and they want to have parades etc etc, hummmm why don't we have them? the whole society is heading towards some deep sh** with all the gay stuff, with all their beloved pets etc etc. we're just living too darn good that's the problem.

now..i don't know why gay people don't organise parades for abused or orpehend children if they are so aware of society problems. now...i know why orphened children are a problem, but i don't know why the fact that gay couples don't have the same rights is?

it's just sick....i mean, EVERY american movie has nowadays at least: 1 Black guy, a super-smart-funny-powerful woman and a gay. now...maybe not movie, but serials DO, most of times.as if it was a rule.some might not recognize this as a threat but...ok, it doesn't bother me that black people are equal, nor it ever has but...to say you're sorry in a way like this..it's just pathetic.and yeah, since women got their vote, they've become smarter and better than all men.to the main part...all of this serials are showing that being gay is ok, it's cool. in fact in last 5 years it's actually IN to be gay, and that..that is a biiiiiig problem.

i've gotten a little "off-shore" with some of the stuff, but...i hope you get the red tread.

Edit:now i've read it.

Kathy, you really do make sense, with the whole "organised" thing. I would have never thought about it, just another Communist scam, a part of a bigger plan...

Jerry:If it is all consenting adults.... what business is it of yours or mine?so...why are gay people making their choice our buisiness?

Now I really have to ask.... any who care to answer...... How has a homosexual person harmed you?

again i'm at the parade thing...they are affecting me, wether i like it or not, one parade too many, and i might think it's ok and normal...etc etc. but i'm not afraid that i'll turn gay EVER, BUT i do plan to have kids, and i don't want my kids think it's ok to be gay etc etc, coz they might turn gay with all thi gayness around us. if they succed in that, my existance was in vain. of course, this is hypothetical direct threat to me.

but this question, no matter how i try to turn it...harm..just sounds so physical, and you know they probably wouldn't do that, since it's against the law.

but you do know it jerry, that if they got everything they want to get and are so eager about it, they would do us harm, just like straights do to them (job interviews etc etc), pure revenge

Perhaps they make such a big deal of it because the straights make a big deal about it.

it's not about sex. it's not about marriage. it's about a small segment of society that wants to convince us that the abnormal is normal and that the structure of our society is wrong. we, in our effort to be PC, do not call them on it. they want the subject of homosexual relationships taught to young children in school. they want validation of their sexual choice by way of marriage. why? why is it necessary that all of us accept a sexually deviant practice as normal?

i do not care what people do in their bedrooms. i don't want homosexuals rounded up and put in jail. i also do not want to see the subject taught to grade school children, or see them parading down the main street of town flaunting their choice of sexual practices.

societies exist in two different ways. they self govern because the majority accepts a set of norms a lives by them, or...the government imposes laws and forces society to live by those laws. the more you unravel the norms, the more government control you bring on society to keep it functioning.

and i ask again: if you are going to accept one form or deviant behavior, why not others?

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

You may not like or agree with the lifestyle. But the gay people and couples I know fall into the same categories most of the straight people I know do. Some people are made for each other. Some relationships don't last. Some are mellow. Some are militant.

I have done theater for too many years and known to many gay people to even care about their lifestyle. I don't give interracial couples a second look why bother a same sex couple. Homosexual behavior is about more than just what goes on in the bedroom, it is naive to think it simply about sex.

Calling marriage a religous item doesn't cut it. You get married by courts, ship's captain, or even a notary public. You don't get a civil union certificate you get a marriage license.

Those who are homosexual and live that lifestyle have had no ill effect on me. It's not a religous movement where you are trying to convert the masses.

I think Kinky Friedman said it best:"I support gay marriage because I believe they have right to be just as miserable as the rest of us!"

That man should be governor of Texas.

Sincerely,Brendhan

Logged

The status is not quo. The world is a mess and I just need to rule it. Dr. Horrible

I think Kinky Friedman said it best:"I support gay marriage because I believe they have right to be just as miserable as the rest of us!"

this just might be true...as we all know it, the forbidden fruit is the sweetest!but still i'm with Kathy, there's something more to this gay thing. why would anyone care if he can get married?ok..you can care, but..that much??

marriage being a religious thing. i don't know how you have it in the US but here, people usually get married twice (in a way). there are civilian marriages done at local magistrat(courthouse?) and there's religious ceramony done and noted by the priest. so it's seperated completely.

Oh come on Brendhan, you can't compare interracial with same sex couple.

you are talking about discrimination against a choice. that's not the same as discrimination against a race. i choose to smoke, yet every day i am discriminated against, even when my smoking does not impact others. they simply don't like it. i even pay and extra regressive tax for my choice. maybe we could slap and extra tax on homosexuals and call it good?

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

Kathy, I agree with you completely, however, there is this little corner of me that wouldn't mind if there were civil unions. Legal contracts between two people that bind them like marriage vows. It seems to be working fine in Vermont and Connecticut (they even have to get divorced and pay through the nose like everyone else). Here in MA we're in the middle of the firestorm of homosexual marriage, and the havoc it is wreaking is incredible! I just wish it would all go away, but now that the cat is out of the bag I don't see that happening, especially here in liberal-land! :roll: